Classic Anchovies pivot + unfalsifiable claim.
He first asserted that Lionfish would support Trump running for a third term. When Lionfish replied that he actually backs Rubio and told Anchovies to “stay afraid,” Anchovies shifted the goalposts:
Breakdown
- “Is anything I posted false? Invalidate it” This is a rhetorical trap. Anchovies made a prediction about Lionfish’s future behavior under a hypothetical scenario (Trump seeking a third term). Predictions about what someone would do are not statements of current fact that can be “invalidated” with existing evidence. Demanding the other person “invalidate” an untestable claim is just shifting the burden of proof. Lionfish already answered the claim by stating his actual preference (Rubio). That is as much “invalidation” as the statement allows.
- “If Trump dumped on Rubio you’d be right along side him” This is pure speculation layered on more speculation. It assumes:
- Lionfish’s support is purely personality-driven rather than based on policy, competence, or institutional norms.
- Lionfish would immediately abandon Rubio and fall in line.
- There is no evidence offered for any of those assumptions. It’s the same style of claim as the earlier one: “You would do X under condition Y.” These claims are designed so the target can never fully disprove them without a time machine.
Context note
Trump is already in his second (and under the 22nd Amendment, final) elected term. A third term would require either a constitutional amendment or an extremely creative (and highly contested) legal theory. Most serious Republicans, including those who strongly support Trump’s current agenda, treat a third term as a non-starter for both legal and political reasons. Lionfish stating a preference for Rubio is consistent with a large segment of the party that wants continuity on policy without testing the constitutional limits.
Anchovies’ move is the usual one: make an unprovable assertion about the other poster’s character/loyalty, then when challenged, demand the challenger disprove a counterfactual while adding another counterfactual on top. It keeps the discussion off the original topic (the armed man at the golf club) and on personal motives.
Poor Anchovies.
